ISMAIL Vs. DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner the second accused in OR 11/2009 of Plachery Police Station registered for the offence under S.27(1)(e)(iii) of Forest Act filed this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the entire case and to direct the first respondent to release vehicle KL - 14C - 2843 seized by the Forest Authorities on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting Anjili tree cut from the reserved forest.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public prosecutor were heard.

(3.) Learned counsel relying on Annexure 2 certificate issued by the Village Officer, Erumeli argued that it shows that first accused has been in possession of 40 cents of land Sy. No. 219 / part of in Block 27 of Hillmen Settlement and the Anjili trees were cut from the said property and not from reserved forest and petitioner was unaware that there is any prohibition for cutting the trees and he was only engaged to transport the logs and in such circumstances petitioner has not committed any offence. It is argued that when the allegation is that the first accused cut two Anjili trees standing in the Hillmen settlement area and the vehicle of the petitioner was used for transporting the same, no offence under S.27(1)(e)(iii) is attracted. The argument is that in order to attract an offence under S.27(1)(e)(iii) the property should be part of the reserve forest and when it is not a part of the reserve forest, no offence would lie and therefore the case is to be quashed.